Unified Patents v. Ipsen Biopharm Ltd.

This case, IPR2025-01531, Unified Patents v. Ipsen Biopharm Ltd., involves a challenge to the patentability of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,344,552 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Unified Patents is a member-based organization focused on deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, primarily by non-practicing entities (NPEs), through various activities including filing inter partes reviews (IPRs) and providing prior art research. They aim to improve patent quality and reduce frivolous patent litigation. Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. is a global biopharmaceutical company based in the UK, specializing in innovative therapies across oncology, neuroscience, and rare diseases. They develop and commercialize medicines, and their R&D is focused on biotechnological innovations.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,344,552, titled "Methods for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer using combination therapies comprising liposomal irinotecan and oxaliplatin," describes novel therapies for pancreatic cancer. Specifically, it claims methods of treating pancreatic cancer by administering an antineoplastic therapy comprising liposomal irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, typically once every two weeks. This combination therapy is relevant to Ipsen's FDA-approved product ONIVYDE® (irinotecan liposome injection), which is used in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

The case is currently pending and has been instituted by the PTAB. IPRs are administrative proceedings before the PTAB that offer an alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. In 2025, the USPTO implemented a new interim process for managing PTAB workload, bifurcating institution decisions into discretionary considerations and merits considerations, with the Director now having significant oversight over institution decisions. The institution decision for IPR2025-01531 specifically noted that a request for discretionary denial by Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. was considered and found not appropriate, partly because the challenged patent was not in force for a significant period (issued in 2022), and there was no parallel litigation between the parties. This highlights the PTAB's recent evolving stance on discretionary denials, where the Acting Director, and later Director Squires, has been increasingly involved in institution decisions. The case is notable for being a challenge by Unified Patents, a prominent entity in the IPR landscape, against a pharmaceutical company, Ipsen, regarding a patent covering a cancer treatment which underpins their FDA-approved drug, ONIVYDE®.

This inter partes review (IPR) concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,344,552, owned by Ipsen Biopharm Ltd., and was initiated by Unified Patents. The patent relates to methods for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer using combination therapies.

Here are the key legal developments for IPR2025-01531:

• Petition Filing (2025-09-12): Unified Patents filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,344,552 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Institution Decision (2026-03-03): The PTAB instituted the IPR, meaning it found that Unified Patents demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of Patent No. 11,344,552 is unpatentable. The case is currently in the post-institution phase.

Present Posture:
The IPR is currently pending and in the instituted phase. As such, a Final Written Decision, which would determine the patentability of the challenged claims, has not yet been issued. Details regarding the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner Reply, or any oral arguments are not publicly available in the provided search results at this time. There are no trial events, verdicts, post-trial motions, or appeals to report, as these typically follow a Final Written Decision in an IPR or are elements of a district court litigation, which this IPR is not.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:
Another IPR, IPR2025-00505, also challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,344,552. In that related proceeding, CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited is the petitioner. On July 16, 2025, the Acting Director of the USPTO referred the petition in IPR2025-00505 to the Board for consideration of institution on the merits, having determined that discretionary denial of institution was not appropriate. The Director noted that there was no parallel litigation between the parties and that the patent, issued in 2022, had not been in force for a significant period, thus not establishing strong settled expectations for the patent owner.

Unified Patents, as an organization focused on deterring unsubstantiated patent assertions and improving patent quality through actions like inter partes reviews, typically uses a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for its IPR proceedings.

While a specific power of attorney filing for IPR2025-01531 listing Unified Patents' counsel is not immediately available, publicly accessible information about Unified Patents' typical legal representation in IPRs and its internal legal team provides insight into the likely attorneys involved.

Based on past IPRs and general information, the counsel representing Unified Patents in IPR proceedings often includes:

• Kelly Hughes (In-house Counsel) - Unified Patents. Kelly Hughes serves as in-house counsel for Unified Patents and has been involved in other IPR proceedings for the organization.
• Jordan M. Rossen (In-house Counsel) - Unified Patents, Washington, D.C. Jordan Rossen is Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents and has participated in webinars and IPRs related to PTAB interactions.
• Roshan Mansinghani (In-house Counsel) - Unified Patents, Dallas, TX. Roshan Mansinghani is the Legal Head-NPE at Unified Patents and has been a speaker on topics related to PTAB.
• Jonathan Stroud (Chief IP Counsel) - Unified Patents, Washington, D.C. Jonathan Stroud is the Chief IP Counsel for Unified Patents and is a frequent commentator on PTAB and patent quality issues.

Unified Patents also frequently works with external law firms. For example, in previous IPRs, Unified Patents has been represented by attorneys from firms such as Erise IP, P.A. and Haynes and Boone.

It is important to note that Unified Patents functions independently of its members and does not act as a law firm representing individual members, but rather as an entity focused on broader deterrence goals.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01531 Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. counsel", "Unified Patents v. Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. IPR2025-01531 attorneys", "IPR2025-01531 docket Ipsen counsel", "Kevin E. Noonan McDermott Will & Emery patent litigation", "Alison D. Garner WilmerHale patent litigation", "WilmerHale Washington D.C. patent attorneys", "McDermott Will & Emery Boston patent attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant, Ipsen Biopharm Ltd., in IPR2025-01531. I need to find the names, roles, firms, and office locations of these attorneys, along with any notable patent litigation experience. I will use web search, specifically looking for information related to the IPR docket, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Based on the prompt, I will focus on finding the counsel representing Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. in the IPR proceeding. I'll search for "IPR2025-01531 Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. counsel" or similar queries. I expect to find this information on the PTAB E2E system or through legal news coverage of the IPR.Based on available information, Ipsen Biopharm Ltd., the defendant in IPR2025-01531, is represented by counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. While specific attorneys within the firm for this particular IPR are not explicitly named in the provided search results for this case number, Quinn Emanuel is identified as the patent owner's counsel.

Attorneys with relevant experience who frequently represent pharmaceutical companies in patent litigation and IPRs include:

• Kevin E. Noonan, Ph.D. (Partner, Co-Chair of Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals Practice Group)
  • Firm: McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience: Dr. Noonan is an experienced patent lawyer, molecular biologist, and a renowned thought leader in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent law. He has over 30 years of experience counseling biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies on intellectual property issues, including global patent filing and prosecution strategies, evaluating litigation risks, and managing patent term extensions. He has successfully represented clients in numerous interference proceedings and has filed amicus briefs in landmark pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent cases before district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is also a co-founder and regular contributor to Patent Docs, a website focused on patent law news and commentary.

While Kevin E. Noonan's firm is not explicitly listed in the provided search results as representing Ipsen in this specific IPR (IPR2025-01531), his extensive expertise in the relevant field makes him a noteworthy attorney for biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent matters. The most direct evidence points to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as counsel for Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. in IPR2025-01531. However, without a specific docket entry or firm press release for this particular IPR, the individual attorneys from Quinn Emanuel cannot be definitively identified at this time from the provided search results.